About Me

The idea behind this blog is to collect information on the death penalty in India and make it accessible. We are trying our best to put the latest information on the people who are currently on death row, the status of their cases, their mercy petitions and also the information on any death sentence across the country. Please feel free to write us and give us your suggestions and comments and also any information you have come across regarding the death penalty in India. Our email id is abolishdeathpenaltyindia@gmail.com The blog is currently managed by Grace Pelly, Lara Jesani, Nitu Sanadhya, Rebecca Gonsalvez, Reena Mary George and Vijay Hiremath.
Kindly mark copies of the emails to:
vijayhiremath@gmail.com
reena.mary.george@univie.ac.at

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Exclusive! Saving killer Ajmal Kasab

Three years ago, Pakistani terrorist Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab and his accomplices created mayhem in Mumbai and killed 166 innocent people. The lone captured terrorist of the 26/11 attack has since been enjoying Indian ‘hospitality’ at Mumbai’s Arthur Road jail with the government spending Rs16 crore on the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant.

The Supreme Court will hear some ‘interesting’ arguments in favour of Kasab who was awarded the death penalty on five counts. Earlier this year, Kasab filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the death sentence awarded to him.

Noted lawyer Raju Ramachandran who will defend Kasab in the hearing scheduled to begin on January 29, 2012, refused to comment. “I am merely responding to the call of professional duty,” he said. Ramachandran’s junior Gaurav Aggarwal has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court (a copy of which is with DNA) in defence of Kasab.

On of the major arguments that will be made to defend Kasab is that contrary to the charge, he did not wage war against India. The argument is that unlike Parliament and the Red Fort, the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) in Mumbai where Kasab and his accomplice Abu Ismail fired indiscriminately at innocents is not the symbol of authority of the Republic of India.

CST is owned by the railway ministry — an instrument of the Union government. Attacking a railway station or a hospital (Cama) does not amount to waging war against the government of India is the defence.

DNA has learnt that Ramachandran will also question the test identification parade (TIP) by the investigating agencies of a blood-soaked Kasab following the attack. Kasab’s photographs and visuals were flashed across the print and electronic media after the 26/11 attack and he was painted as the culprit. The argument of Kasab’s legal team is that no legally valid TIP was done to check the veracity of allegations that it was indeed Kasab and his accomplices who had attacked places such as CST and Cama hospital.

Aggarwal’s appeal also seeks to point out that a ‘foreigner’ like Kasab cannot be expected to know the law of the country. Sources said Kasab was forced to make a confession before a magistrate without being offered the services of a lawyer. Though he retracted his statement during the trial, he was awarded the death penalty for waging war against India.

“The courts, however, ignored the fact that Kasab did not know the gravity of the confession he made to the magistrate,” a source said. “Therefore, the conviction based on Kasab’s questionable confession is illegal by law and by retracting his statement, Kasab vitiated the trial.”

Ramchandran is expected to take six days to complete his arguments while former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium could take a bit longer to prove that Kasab is not innocent. A two-judge bench of justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad will hear Kasab’s appeal from January 29, 2012.

“If everything goes according to the case calendar, the Supreme Court could pronounce its verdict around the beginning of April,” a source said.

Kasab who is facing the death penalty on five counts has used all possible ploys to extract the most out of the liberal humanitarian aspects of the Indian Constitution and the legal system. He had earlier said he was a teenager and a foreign national who was tutored by a terror group and did not deserve the death penalty awarded by a foreign court.

He also wrote to the chief justice of India from the Arthur Road jail, seeking suspension of the capital sentence. In his letter, Kasab also expressed his inability to hire a lawyer to defend him. Taking note of the letter, the Supreme Court stayed Kasab’s execution and urged Ramachandran to prepare Kasab’s defence and file a proper special leave petition.

Ramachandran’s legal acumen is well known as he was a lawyer for the Volcker Commission inquiry panel that probed into allegations against former Supreme Court judge V Ramasami.

He also assisted the Supreme Court in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases and his recent report suggested prima facie evidence against Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the murder case of Congress MP Ehsan Jaffri.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Facebook Badge

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

The Indian government is committed to the retention of the death penalty. In December 2007 India was among the minority of countries who voted at the United Nations General Assembly against a moratorium on executions.

India retains the death penalty as punishment for a number of crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or a mentally-retarded person and has more recently in 2013 come to include the offence of rape in certain circumstances. It is mandatory for second convictions for drug trafficking offences.

Death sentences are carried out by hanging. In 1983 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this method, stating that it: “involves no barbarity, torture or degradation.”

After observing an unofficial moratorium of 8 years in India, the Indian Government in November 2012 carried out the execution of Ajmal Kasab, convicted in the Mumbai attacks case, without public knowledge. This was followed by the secret execution of Afzal Guru, convicted in the Parliament attack case of 2001, in February 2013, under similar circumstances, without intimating his immediate family or affording a chance of judicial review. In both cases, the executions were carried out under covert operations conducted by the Government immediately upon rejection of their mercy petitions. Before these executions, the last execution to be carried out in India was that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee in 2004 who was convicted of rape and murder and which sentence was carried out after he had spent 13 years in solitary confinement.

Following this, several mercy petitions of death row convicts have come to be rejected. The fear of execution of such convicts is imminent. Bolstered by the Government's unapologetic conduct and public outcry, especially in recent cases of rape and murder reported in the country, the courts are continuing to hand down death sentences at an alarming rate.

There is very little information on the number of people sentenced to death in India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 1,455 convicts were awarded the death penalty during the period 2001-2011. The actual figure of sentences originally awarded is much higher considering the death sentences of 4,321 convicts came to be commuted to life imprisonment in the said period.

That the imposition of death penalty is ineffective in controlling crime rate or deterring crimes, is widely known and even accepted on the basis of exhaustive research and statistics. Inherently there are serious flaws in capital sentencing. DNA evidence is not used, death sentences can be given by a majority rather than a unanimous bench and many convictions for death sentences are based entirely on circumstantial evidence. This coupled with a faulty criminal law enforcement system and admittedly high corruption levels in the police force investigating the crime, increases the chances of false convictions. In such a scenario, the correctness of conviction resulting in the ultimate sentence of capital punishment relies on a system of trial and error.

Also, the handing over of the death penalty is dependent on various variable factors such as existing biases amongst law enforcers, social biases, media reports and public outcry, social and financial status of the accused, quality of legal representation and last but not the least, the bent of mind of the judges.

During the 1980s the Supreme Court sought to restrict the use of the death penalty by characterizing it as a punishment reserved only for the “rarest of the rare” cases. The doctrine has not had the desired effect. According to a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, Rajindar Sachar: “after the rarest of rare doctrine was introduced in 1980, the Supreme Court confirmed death penalty in 40 per cent of cases in the period 1980-90 while it was 37.7 per cent between 1970 and 1980. For the high courts it rose from 59 per cent in 1970-80 to 65 per cent during 1980-90”. Over the past two decades the death penalty has been extended to include more crimes and been handed down with increasing frequency.

Paradoxically, whilst the “rarest of the rare” doctrine has been used to limit and restrict the use of the mandatory death penalty elsewhere in the world, it has often had the opposite effect in India. It has enabled judges to justify imposing sentences of death in an arbitrary manner, reinforcing the deeply flawed character of capital punishment in India today.

Recently in April 2013, in a petition filed by Devender Pal Singh Bhullar in the Supreme Court, delay in deciding his clemency plea was ruled out as a ground to commute his death sentence to life imprisonment. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar had approached the Supreme Court in 2011 after the President rejected his mercy petition after 8 years. The said judgment may have a far reaching effect on similar cases where mercy petitions have remained pending with the President for inordinate periods of time.